You are here

Letters to the Editor: November 19, 2013

Submitted by West Valley View on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 10:00pm

Recognizing Carolyn for parade

Editor:

The article by Shane McOwen regarding the W. Valley gears up for Veterans Day neglected to mention something. Here in Pebblecreek we would not have a Veterans Day Parade if it wasn’t for Carol;yn Rota & her many volunteers. Carolyn is the person who initiated the Parade approximately 3yrs ago. She has been tireless in her effort to bring the best Parade possible to the West Valley & to Pebblecreek in particular. I say KUDOS to her & her team.

Vera Capiello
Goodyear

Democratic donkey

Editor:

There was a letter chuckling about the donkey as the symbol of the Democratic Party. Jesus Christ chose to ride a humble donkey into Jerusalem.

In Genesis, God chose the arrogant serpent to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying His law, and it became the symbol of sin and evil.

Is it odd that the Tea Party chose a flag with a coiled serpent as their symbol. They march under the coiled serpent, they assemble under the coiled serpent, and they welcome neo-Confederates under the coiled serpent of the Gadsden flag.

Yes, we progressives have the lowly donkey as our symbol and the Tea Baggers have the arrogant serpent as their symbol.

James Terwilliger
Goodyear

Native American beauty

Editor:

A few days ago I was in Scottsdale attending an event. Now I don’t get to the East valley all that much; however, when I do, I am always struck by the fact that geographically speaking, God blessed the East valley a little more than the West valley with more and more magnificent mountain ranges. That is God’s doing and nothing we can change.

However there is something we can change, and we in the West valley should in my opinion, make it a priority. Every time I am in the East valley, I wonder why there is so much more beautiful Native American art work along the freeways there than we have in the West valley. We have some paintings here, but not much. Albuquerque, New Mexico offers a stunning example of what can be done with Native American artwork along there interstates. Why not here?

It can’t cost that much to do. It would really increase civic pride. Why not Goodyear, Avondale, Buckeye, Glendale and Peoria, Why not? It occurs to me that I asked that same question in my 3 minute verbal presentation to the Goodyear city council, well over a year ago. I believe the Mayor said she would refer the question to somebody for further study. That is the last I heard about it.

So good idea? If you think so why not bring it up to your city councils?

Roy Azzarello
Goodyear

Worthless conservative opinions

Editor:

I must question Mr. Orr’s reading comprehension. (Nov. 8th) I’ve never said facts (or reason) are necessary to have an opinion, only that they are essential for opinions to have worth. After all, we state our opinions not merely to spew them, but hoping to convince others they’re correct. You can’t do that without fact and reason.

In that same issue his “hero” (the Socialist Mr. Azzarello) proclaimed that “Progressives” want a “secular humanistic society”, and will “come against every person of faith in their place of worship”. That’s as false an accusation as I’ve ever heard! The issue is obedience to the Constitution’s command that there can be no government establishment of religion (or other government meddling in the subject). What religion he, and anyone else, practice as individuals is their private right. They just can’t employ “the heavy hand of government” in that arena. So, he (and his so-called “conservatives”) are actively trying to destroy the principle of Church/State separation (which made this nation great). His patriotic opponents want to preserve it.

Of course, that’s just my opinion versus his. How to choose between them? By looking at the facts and employing reason, not simply (mindlessly) accepting what either of us say.

But Azzarello and Orr mock the every idea that, to have merit, opinions require facts. Which is why their opinions are worthless!

And note how Orr chose to misquote me. Why did he omit my October 1st. statement that even if one believes the moon is made of green cheese, that opinion won’t make it a dairy product? He quoted the two sentences which preceded it.

Answer: my example illustrated the point I was making (about fact versus opinion). His dishonest omission (a typical Socialist trick) is a further reason his Nov. 8th letter was worthless!

Gordon P.R. PosnerTolleson

Real victims of immigration law

Editor:

I read with bewilderment and anger Raul Grijalva’s skewed emphasis on the protection of illegal aliens and his willingness to break additional American laws, all the while ignoring the plight of Americans who have suffered unspeakable hardships due to uncontrolled illegal immigration. He whines about the dozens of ‘migrants’ who die every year attempting to cross into the US but conveniently leaves out the fact these individuals fell victim to their own bad decisions and reaped the consequences thereof. Many died from natural causes such as exposure to the elements while others fell victim to human and drug smugglers. Albeit the very same smugglers they co-conspired with to enter the US unlawfully. However Grijalva, like every other La Raza open border buffoon ignores the real victims of illegal immigration, the thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands maimed by the malefactors he defends.

So Raul have you ever heard of Kelly Tracy, Olivia Wilson, Tanne Natividad, James & Emilia Lee, Kris Eggle, Kenneth Collings, Marc Atkinson, Kyle Wible, of course not, because they weren’t one of your precious dreamers were they??? I’ll tell you who they are; they were just a few of the countless Americans, who have been brutally killed by the very same reprobates you wish to provide amnesty through “comprehensive immigration reform.” These innocent victims were not committing criminal acts as with your ‘migrants’ when their lives were violently taken. They were on our side of the border either doing their jobs or minding their own business, when one of your precious ‘migrants’ decided to break additional American laws.

However the most tragic part is these deaths were 100% preventable. If our southern borders were properly secured and our federal authorities enforced current immigration laws, every single one of these precious Americans would still be alive.

Which one? I believe he posts his propaganda every day, if not several times a day. What? You couldn't be bothered to provide more information than that, let alone a link? Not good enough, madam.

Oh, and I'd hardly call Mr. Drudge an unimpeachable source. Quite the opposite. As long as you're going to listen to, and rely on, the likes of him, I'll thank you to stop being so presumptuous and sanctimoniuous about what you assume I rely on.

P.S. - But if you want the latest "news" on what's happening in Neverland, Storybrooke, Sleepy Hollow, Wonderland, and Haven, or in the lives of Richard Castle and Kate Becket, various Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, beauty and her beast, the Arrow, Sherlock Holmes, and the Grimm, I'm your guy. (And let's not forget the Doctor!)

You just have to go to the right places to get the info. You won't find anything on the liberal sites and newspapers you frequent--MSNBC, CNN, etc., because they refuse to report anything negative about this administration. You have to bite the bullet and hit the conservative sources.

Nice evasion and avoidance there. What part of "you haven't even supplied the 'original account' (or a link to it)" was too difficult for you to understand.? I'm not going to go hunting for it, and try to guess what your "source" was. Time to put up or . . . .

Oh, and if by "frequent" you mean "passby while flipping channels", then I not only "frequent" MSNBC and CNN, but also Fox, TBN, and the Golf Channel (to name a few). And I never play golf! (I agree with Churchill: it's a long walk spoiled.)

In other words, another "horror story". I'm getting real tired of reading about them, only to discover (a day or two later) that the facts don't support the original account!

Of course, in this case you haven't even supplied the "original account" (or a link to it), so I can't fact check it to discover whether it's valid, or just another "one dollar premium moment"!

P.S. - And if you care to get around to it. Please post it in what will then be the current issue of the View. I really don't want to have to look through back issues to find it. In fact, why not wait until the next issue "comes out" on the 26th? Think of it as an "erev Hanukah" present to me! (That's "eve of Hanukah" for the non-Hebrew speaking.)

On re-reading your Comment I realize that Mr. Buckmon might be the "source" in question. If so he's not "anonymous", he's just a disgruntled former employee who got fired for this! Gee, how many times have we heard Republi-Cons blindly accept such "testimony" when made against "their side"? I can't think of a single instance.

Another day and yet another government agency caught breaking the law in the name of Barack Obama.

From the Washington Times (Census Bureau Faked Jobs Report Ahead of 2012 Election):

"U.S. government job numbers were intentionally skewed to paint a brighter economic picture in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, a source told the New York Post...

The source said he would testify to Congress and speak to the Labor Department about what he claimed was falsified data...

The source claimed that two years before President Obama won his re-election campaign, the Census Bureau actually caught one of its workers changing and falsifying jobs' numbers. But the problem didn't end; rather, the skewing of statistics only intensified in the months leading up to the election...

The employee who was caught, Julius Buckmon, told the Post that he actually skewed numbers at the behest of his bosses."

Is there no end to the corruption of this administration?...Apparently not!

Oh gee, an anonymous source, quoted in the hyper-partisan "Moonie" Washington Times makes a completely unsubstantiated claim, and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. And if, instead, it had been an anonymous source quoted in the New York Times claiming that Bush the First deliberately deceived us about those (non-existent) WMD's would you express similar outrage at your "beloved", or skepticism about the whole claim?

I'm guessing the latter. Perhaps you should try applying it universally. Let's see what facts emerge before assuming Obama had anything to do with this. (Funny how when this sort of thing happens in Republican Administrations it's always the fault of a "bad apple". Just ask Valerie Plame!)

Sam Martinez I hope you read this section because I want you to know that I have never read a more outstanding letter in the West Valley View. I personally have written about a hundred letters to the View, but never did I write a better letter than you posted today. Sam you are an American patriot. Thanks for taking all the time to research all those names. God bless you, Sam !

Roy, I hope he reads this section too because I too felt his opinion was worthy and patriotic.

Illegal immigration is always a delicate subject because everyone is so afraid these days of offending someone.

Because of that the media and people like Mr. Posner completely avoid, redirect, obscure, and ignore the problems that the American citizens face due to illegal immigration.

Furthermore, the dreamers by executive decree are protected already, so there was no reason whatsoever for Grijalva to go stump for them when he should have been in Congress working toward reopening the government.

Without an open government, there can be no legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. I had to write him that and say DUH! I think it is high time we replace him because he certainly doesn't have the intelligence to know this.

No, it's not "delicate", it's complex, and it's poorly addressed by uninformed, partisan, ideological "opinions" like you, Roy, and Mr. Martinez indulge in. (Especially when you see fit to point the finger at me, while evading and avoiding all the points I made. Why don't you address them head-on, instead of trying to circumvent them?)

Care to tell me which problems I "avoid, redirect, obscure, and ignore", or is providing proof for your accusation too much trouble? I specifically addressed the problem of criminal activity (which is what Martinez's letter focused on). And what did I say should happen to those "malefactors" he charges "killed" and "maimed" Americans? I responded that they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I guess you just want to reward them with free airfare out of the country!

And your claim that "the dreamers by executive decree are protected already" is absolutely false. (Gee, with inaccuracies like that, I should compare your lying to that of the President. Shouldn't you be held to the same standards "conservatives" insist on for others?) All the executive order (not a "decree") does is say that people who haven't committed violent crimes (such as the dreamers, among others) can stay (for now). But that can be reversed at any moment. (Not to mention after the 2016 elections, if things go "your way".) Hardly an "adequate substitute" for the proposed DREAM Act.

Moreover, the executive order gives "dreamers" no way to move beyond their status. They must remain in a kind of legal limbo forever. Under the proposed Act they have a way to become legal permanent residents - a big difference!

(As for Grijalva "working toward reopening the government": just how, as a minority member of the House, was he supposed to do that? By caving in to G.O.P. extortion? They had the votes to block funding without him. Pray tell what he could have "contributed" towards overcoming that?)

And please note, the Democratic Senate has been working on "comprehensive immigration reform", while the House shows no interest in addressing it. Indeed, the Speaker has refused to even negotiate on the topic. It takes "two to tango", and it doesn't take much intelligence to know that!

P.S. - I used a Washington Times report (jaundiced and one-sided though it might be) so even Judy will have to acknowledge it just might possibly be true. There plenty of news sources reporting the same thing.

P.P.S.- It's possible to have a serious, intelligent, and informed debate on this topic, but not with people who think "patriotism" consists of ideological purity and empty rhetoric. In other words, you sir!

Fortunately for us, we have a Bicameral legislature, so the passions of the Senate progressives get quelled by the stablizing force of the House. I completely agree with Boehner on this issue in the link you provided where he said, “ “The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House."

There is so much that needs to be reviewed, figured out, and made right for us to just throw something, anything out there without review. To do that would be irresponsible. You are right to say it is a complex issue.

Wouldn't you want it done RIGHT...the FIRST time, unlike Obamacare - where there were many things found out about it that were bad and revolked after it was passed?

The dreamers by executive order...decree...whatever, ARE protected already. They do not need to live in fear of deportation, they can work here now legally. Yes, his royal highness Obama can of course revolk it at any time, but he won't and you know it. Neither will anyone for that matter...even if Cruz makes the Presidency (Lord forbid). Furthermore, CONGRESS who is in charge of immigration legislation has already come out a long time ago stating that they will not criminalize illegal aliens for just being here in the country the first time.

It is not empty rhetoric to be patriotic and idealistic. Afterall, progressives feel they are patriotic with their idealism of a eutopian society. Therefore I reject your claim that an intelligent conversation on the matter cannot be had. It can, you just have to prioritize your arguments to whatever is best for America should come first and be primary. Bad laws or rushed laws are not good for America. Change needs to be made carefully, not just because the king of change sits in the Oval office. There are many issues that are near and dear to the American heart that need to be addressed besides comprehensive immigration reform.

Unfortunately you just can't resist demonstrating that you are incapable of honest and intelligent debate. In all those plethora of words you just spewed, you never bothered even trying to address one plain, simple, request I made of you. So let me repeat it.

Care to tell me which problems I "avoid, redirect, obscure, and ignore", or is providing proof for your accusation too much trouble?

Well, to be fair your evasion and avoidance at least answered half of that question. Clearly, it is too much trouble for you to provide proof!

Given how long the Senate has been working on immigration reform (the better part of the year), I'd hardly call the final bill the product of passions. And, in further display of your ignorance of the Founders' "orgininal intent", you manage to get things reversed. The Senate is the place where the passions of the House are to be quelled, both by the fact that Senators serve for six years (and are elected on a rotating basis) and by the fact that long debate (including filibusters) are a tradition there. It's the House where laws are "rushed" through (with the minority usually having little or no say in the process).

Of course you take Boehner's words at face value (since it suits your purposes to do so), but why be so selective about what the article says? Far from being "rushed" into "taking up" the bill (much less passing it), all that's asked is that the House consider the bill, but (as it says at the start of the article) he "flatly ruled out even entering into negotiations with the Senate"!

Oh, and as someone who supposedly favors "comprehensive immigration reform" (http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/563#comment-563) it's odd to hear you approve of Boehner's call for a "step-by-step approach" (also known as piecemeal). The Republi-Cons have made it very clear what they're demanding: close the border, deport the illegals, and then they'll "negotiate". Or, as the article states:

House Republicans rejected that broad approach and said they would write a series of bills dealing with immigration in pieces. House committees have cleared bills dealing with border security, interior enforcement and guest-worker programs, and leaders were working on a bill that would have legalized young illegal immigrants.

Which matches Mr. Martinez's letter. He heaped scorn on the idea of "comprehensive immigration reform", and only spoke favorably about stronger enforcement - as if the government can't do both! The point is: which of those bills do you think will eventually be passed by the House (whenever), and which won't. Judging from the rhetoric of the G.O.P. (and its supporters) I'm dubious that anything other than the enforcement measures will make it out alive!

But gee, the bills that have been cleared certainly sound like a basis for "entering into negotiations" to me! Indeed, the article continues:

Congressional Democrats and Mr. Obama had held out hope that the House would pass some of those bills, then go to a conference committee to hammer out a final deal with the Senate. That final deal, Mr. Obama said, would have to include citizenship rights for most illegal immigrants.

But Mr. Boehner’s statement Wednesday ruled out that option.

So why did you ignore the part of the article which summarized the matter this way?

The remarks marked an about-face for Mr. Boener, who immediately after Mr. Obama’s re-election a year ago said he expected to work with the president on the issue, and even used the word “comprehensive” — a term that, in the immigration debate, has come to mean the broad legalization approach that Mr. Obama and Democrats want.

I mean, I know you avoid facts like the plague, but this is ridiculous!

As for the rest of your irrelevant, or just plain false, remarks - since most of them are mere repetititions of what you said before (as if I'd never responded to your prior Comment at all), I think the best reply is one I may be using frequently with you: Lather, rinse, repeat!

P.S. - And who says immigration reform is the only issue "near and dear" to Americans, or that it must be addressed to the exclusion of all the others? Another "straw man" on your part! More empty rhetoric and sophistry. These are not the actions of a patriot, sir!

P.P.S. - But at least you agree that a "President Cruz" is something to pray never happens. That's (dare I say it) "progress".

Just because I do not answer all your questions going back to the end of time does not mean I am avoiding them...half of them like this reply of yours I wasn't even aware of until now when I was checking something else.

I also do not have the time to answer all your billions of questions (yes, that was hyperbolic of me), nor research each and every little quote or fact to provide to you online. You seem to have a lot more time to do that than I do.

Your practice of going back and answering things after the next issue has been released may not get you the answers you seek.

You said: And, in further display of your ignorance of the Founders' "orgininal intent", you manage to get things reversed.

The reversal is intentional, not ignorant. Congress today is reversed. The democrat Senate's passion throws bills out there that are "X-thousand" pages long that never get read before a vote (like Obamacare and immigration), and it is the House that quells those passions now (like in this immigration issue).

I do favor "comprehensive immigration reform" but like the idea that the each section will be read, discussed, analized and then combined into one comprehensive bill (as I understood their intentions to be here). I see nothing wrong with that. If the house does peacemeal, doesn't it have to be combined with the Senate bill before it can be passed by both houses and sent to the President for his signature, thus making it comprehensive?

The quote you provided did not state what you says it does : "deport the illegals, and then they'll "negotiate"

I am doubtful of your negativity toward the House on this issue. I believe if the members in the house want to keep their seats, they are going to want to pass immigration reform quickly - just not as fast as the passionate and illiterate Senate.

I don't follow your question in your PS or understand why you are asking it.

I don't feel the Junior Senator Cruz is any more qualified to be the president than the Junior Senator Obama was, which was why I was not in favor of him being selected by the DNC as the nominee, but...to their credit, Hillary DID get caught in a bold faced lie about getting off the airplaine under sniper fire (that never happened).

Your attempt to justify your behaviour only proves what a basically dishonest person you are: you make a principle of it! Allow me to reply, point by point.

It's not that you don't bother answering all of what I write (and it involves more than questions). You usually ignore most of it, focusing instead on one small part you take out of context, and employ selectively, so that you can create a "straw man" to knock down. That's called sophistry, sir, and it's dishonest.

As for my posting Comments "after the next issue has been released" - gee, I didn't realize the View "closed" the Comments section when that happens. Oh, wait, they don't!

Besides, you don't "play" by your own rules. I've seen you post plenty of Comments after the "next issue" arrived. So, why should I play by them?

(In the past, however, I have posted "new" Comments to what was then the "current" issue, with a reference back to the earlier Comment I was replying to - also posting a reference there to the "new" Comment. Perhaps I should revive that practice - even though I'm the only one who ever did it!)

So, your "defense" to my charge that you wereignorant about the "original intent" of the Founders is that you were deliberately deceitful instead! You used their rhetoric contrary to the way they employed it. Great way to improve your credibility. (Not!)

And, of course, you have to lie about what the Senate did. It spent the past year working on its immigration bill. Hardly 'throwing it out there', then you compound that lie with with reference to the much repeated lie about what Pelosi said concerning the Affordable Care Act. But hey, you've already shown you feel free to selectively edit what a person says (thus twisting it), all so you can then condemn them for your revision! What else is new?

(And just to bore you with the facts, neither "Obamacare" nor the Immigration Bill is thousands of pages long - no "X" needed. As a "conservative" who demands "absolute accuracy" of others, you are remarkably careless even with math!)

As for the Boehner's desire to do things "piecemeal", I suggest you look up what that term means. (Oh, wait, I forgot, you only bother with definitions when it suits your purposes, otherwise words only mean what it's "useful" for you to have them mean.)

The legislation process, in either part of Congress, consists (or more precisely should consist) of each part of the legislation being considered before passage. No one's suggesting that the House simply vote on the Senate bill without doing that. Nor is anyone suggesting the House can't make such changes to that bill as it wishes. That's part of the normal legislative process, and happens all the time! (That's why they eventually have a meeting of a joint Senate and House committee to reconcile the two versions, which then is submitted to both Chambers for a final vote.) Allow me to requote the relevant part of that article we've been discussing:

Congressional Democrats and Mr. Obama had held out hope that the House would pass some of those bills, then go to a conference committee to hammer out a final deal with the Senate. That final deal, Mr. Obama said, would have to include citizenship rights for most illegal immigrants.

That's the normal process. Yet what did the article go on to say was the response by the G.O.P.?

But Mr. Boehner’s statement Wednesday ruled out that option.

In other words, there will be no negotiation, or even consideration of what the Senate proposes. The House will simply create its own (probably very one-sided) version of an "Immigration Bill", which the Senate (hopefully) will also refuse to consider (the way it's bill was refused by the House). Then I'll be able to sanctimoniously, but in keeping with the Founders' intent, opine my gratitude that the "passions of the House" were "quelled by the stablizing force of the" Senate. (I can only imagine your hypocritical protests should that happen.)

As for the quote I provided, I never claimed it said: "deport the illegals and then they'll negotitate". (You left out "close the border", by the way.) I stated that "The Republi-Cons have made it very clear what they're demanding", followed by my opinion of what that was. (All opinions have worth, remember?) I then quoted part of that article, following it with the following discussion:

Which matches Mr. Martinez's letter. He heaped scorn on the idea of "comprehensive immigration reform", and only spoke favorably about stronger enforcement - as if the government can't do both! The point is: which of those bills do you think will eventually be passed by the House (whenever), and which won't. Judging from the rhetoric of the G.O.P. (and its supporters) I'm dubious that anything other than the enforcement measures will make it out alive!

Has the G.O.P. distinguished itself as "champions" of comprehensive immigration reform? No. Have they (or Mr. Martinez) spoken of anything except stronger enforcement? Usually not. (There are some exceptions, such as Senator McCain - and just look how that's greeted by the Republi-Cons! Not exactly with "enthusiasm".) So, take issue with my opinion if you wish. Challenge the facts or reasoning it's based on, but don't falsely accuse me of doing what you persist in doing so often: misquoting people to create a "straw man".

Just remember, according to you (and Roy, among others) whether or not I have facts and reason to back up my opinion is unimportant. Right?

But I'll agree with you on one point: don't confuse my skepticism about what the House will do with a prediction. As I've said many times before: predictions are for fools. However, I don't share you optimism either.

Here's why. The House districts are gerrymandered so adroitly (by both parties, please note) that in some places the "correct" candidate will be elected merely by the "color" they "wear". (Are they a "true-blue" Democrat, or a "red-blooded" Republican?) Thus, they really only have to worry about the primaries, which are usually decided by the most extreme elements in either party. Your precious "Tea Party Patriots" have made it clear they don't favor comprehensive reform, and any Republicans who "want to keep their seats" in such districts will do the same. Add in the "Hastert Rule" (which is really Boehner's Rule) and that's why "I'm dubious that anything other than the enforcement measures will make it out alive!"

I'd be delighted to find your optimism was correct, and my skepticism was not. Just don't ask me to hold my breath.

P.S. - If you bothered to read and consider all of what I write, and then reply in context the meaning of my "P.S." would be clear. (I assume you mean the first one.)

You previously wrote:

. . . you just have to prioritize your arguments to whatever is best for America should come first and be primary. Bad laws or rushed laws are not good for America. Change needs to be made carefully, not just because the king of change sits in the Oval office. There are many issues that are near and dear to the American heart that need to be addressed besides comprehensive immigration reform.

In response to that I wrote:

And who says immigration reform is the only issue "near and dear" to Americans, or that it must be addressed to the exclusion of all the others? Another "straw man" on your part! More empty rhetoric and sophistry. These are not the actions of a patriot, sir!

Now, I know you don't like it when I paraphrase what you write, stating my opinion about what you are saying (or, rather, trying to say, because you're not the greatest of writers), but I should think my point was clear. I never suggested we focus solely on comprehensive immigration reform. Neither has anyone else in Congress. They've been doing lots of things, including: trying to get a budget passed, trying (when that failed) to get a continuing resolution passed, trying to raise the debt limit, trying to sequester some spending, trying to get officials (including judges) appointed, trying to ratify treaties, along with immigration reform! So, all I was asking was for some proof, based on facts that there was anyone in Congress who thinks we should shutdown the government until the immigration issue was settled. (Sound familiar?)

And all that's in contrast with those who think their first priority is attempting to repeal "Obamacare". (How many times have they tried that in the House already - 40 or 50, I've lost count?) Or who think they should concentrate on bills to restrict abortion. (Ditto.)

P.P.S. - The other postscript was simply to express my agreement with you about a "President Cruz". What's to "follow"?

P.P.P.S - You couldn't resist ending with another "cheap shot": Clinton's silly mistake about landing in Bosnia. Tell me, sir, can you remember precisely everything that happened to you twelve years ago? I can't, which is why I often punctuate my Comments with warnings that I'm relying on my memory. (Actually, my memory is pretty good, but I still wouldn't rely on it as a source for "absolute accuracy".)

Buy hey, compared to lying about one's part in the coverup of a "third-rate burglary", selling "arms for hostages", or Saddam's WMD's and the dangers of waiting for the "proof" of a "mushroom cloud" before invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, I can see how making a dumb statement (during the stress of a campaign) is so much more important! (Part of me actually looks forward to the "fun" of subjecting the next Republi-Con President to the standard of "absolute accuracy" you on the "right" employ against Democrats.)

P.P.P.P.S. - But in keeping with the "principle" you "announced" at the start of your Comment, I trust you will refrain from posting any reply here, and instead post it in whatever is the current issue at the time. Just make sure you refer back to this Comment (maybe with a link to it), so we can all know what you're talking about, and won't have to guess.

Don't assume that I agree with everything in the Senate bill, or even with the bill itself for that matter. Returning to the context of this whole discussion, the Grijalva interview focused mainly (though not exclusively) on the DREAM Act.

And even with respect to that Act, don't assume I agree with or support all of it. I agree with the principle behind the Act: that those who entered this country as children (who therefore can't really be held legally responsible for the actions of their parents), and who haven't broken other laws while here, should be given a chance to become permanent residents. As for citizenship (and related issues), that's part of the details to be worked out in negotiation, as part of the normal legislative process. Of course, negotiation is something Boehner just refused to even consider!

Sam Martinez I hope you read this section because I want you to know that I have never read a more outstanding letter in the West Valley View. I personally have written about a hundred letters to the View, but never did I write a better letter than you posted today. Sam you are an American patriot. Thanks for taking all the time to research all those names. God bless you, Sam !

What a relief! Just when we were turning into a mutual admiration society, you go and post another of your thoughtless "opinions".

It's important to note a few facts you and Mr. Martinez ignored, including:

Grijalva talked about many aspects of our immigration problems. Including the DREAM Act (which only applies to people brought here as children, and therefore hardly fit the stereotype the two of you indulge in).

Nowhere did he excuse, must less suggest any support for, the criminals the two of you are referring to. No one is suggesting that a person who commits a violent crime (like Martinez discusses) has any "rights" except to a right to Due Process at their trial, the "right" to be punished (on conviction) for their crime, and (when they've served their sentence) the "right" to be kicked out as soon as possible!

He wasn't proposing "open borders". That's as big a lie as my saying the two of you are cheering the deaths Grijalva spoke of. (Though it's true you seem to regard those lives as dirt cheap.)

You are both living in a fantasy world if you think securing our borders and strictly enforcing our immigration laws will solve all the problems he spoke of. Not only would the cost be prohibitive (ready to pay the increased taxes necessary to accomplish this?), not only would the disruption to our society and economy be enormous, but many of the problems he specifically cited will still exist!

Take one example: the children he mentioned who are "left behind" to become wards of the State when their parents are deported. The article doesn't make it clear, but I can only presume they were born here, and therefore are American citizens. They can't be deported, so guess who pays for their care when their parents are gone? I'm glad you're so generous with my money, you old "socialist" you!

Immigration, like almost everything else in politics and law, is a complex subject. It requires more than "soundbites", rhetoric, and ideology to be discussed in a serious and intelligent fashion. And because the stakes are so important (often literally life and death), it's vital that we use more than that in the discussion, and immoral when we don't!

So you are in support of the progressive Grijalva's actions to disobey the law and get himself arrested in order to represent Mexican Nationals instead of the American people who elected him into office to represent THEM? That figures.

The government was shut down at that time and instead of him representing us in Congress and working toward getting the government reopened, he and several other progressives felt it was more important to go out there and break the law (or just excerce their civil disobedience as you look at it). That figures too. Your priorities of putting the cart before the horse are akin to his.

This is also the lunatic who called for a boycott on our state if you'll remember...and that hurt us!

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things and I agree with Mr. Martinez and Mr. Oviatt Sr. that Grijalva was in the wrong - and his priorities are all screwed up.

Do I support Griljalva's exercise in civil disobedience? Frankly, I'm not a big fan of it no matter who does it, or for what reason. (Though sometimes it's a necessity - such as with the sit-ins to desegregate lunch counters.)

But how typical of you "conservatives" to think Immigration Reform only involves Mexican Nationals, and that none "of the American people who elected him into office to represent THEM" support it. News flash. I suspect the majority of the voters in his district elected him for just that reason! (Oh, I get it, they must be "Progressives", so their votes and opinions don't count.)

And yeah, how dare he (as a minority member of the House, with no influence at all) spend time other than listening to another of Cruz's interminable speeches, or watching Boehner "cry like a baby" because he can't control the extremists in his own party, and hasn't got the backbone to even try!

But nice try evading and avoiding what I wrote. It shows (again) that your "priorities" have nothing to do with reality, only with empty rhetoric and partisan ideology!

P.S. - But if it makes you feel any better, since I don't live in his district I have no say in whether he stays or goes.

You were the one who said all he did was excercise his right to civil disobedience - as if that was an excuse for what he did.

I know for a fact that reform is not only needed, but that it is not only for Mexican Nationals. Don't even start trying to go there! However, you know as well as I do that the vast percentage of them - and the ones Grijalva mentions crossing the sonoran desert into this country (and sometimes perishing out in the desert) are Mexican nationals.

And you are right, many people who voted him into office support the issue. I support the issue. But I do not support it being done half-fast or rushed because of some rally/protest. I also do not feel this is the number one domestic issue as Grijalva stated, and I don't feel it should be his number one priority either.

You are now going to give Grijalva a pass because he is a minority member in the house? No wonder why nothing gets done in DC, with fatalist attitudes like that. Cruz is not even a member of the House, he is in the Senate. Grijalva should, as well as all those other members of Congress, have been up there daily working on a solution, doing whatever it takes to get the government back open. I would much rather he tried and failed than to never try at all because of the same fatalist attitude you display. I'd be in there talking compromise to everyone I could. I'd be getting with others who feel the same way I did and presenting suggestions, talking with the press about it, whatever I could. I even wrote him a few suggestions he could use at the time...never heard back from him. And as it turns out...they may have to delay the whole individual mandate afterall if they can't get the website and glitches fixed...and that was the ONLY thing the House was asking for on the eve of the shutdown.

I am glad to hear you are not a fan of civil disobedience, but it would be nice if you felt it reprehensible when congressmen who make the laws and expect us to obey them go out and break those laws. I wish you would hold him accountable and quit making excuses for him. I am sure you are about to crucify that republican congressman from Florida for doing cocain.

The crisis of the day was the government being shut down, not immigration reform. I was not evading what you wrote - what you wrote was an evasion of you admitting he was wrong.

Do I support Griljalva's exercise in civil disobedience? Frankly, I'm not a big fan of it no matter who does it, or for what reason. (Though sometimes it's a necessity - such as with the sit-ins to desegregate lunch counters.)

I clearly stated I'm no fan (hardly an expression of "support"). While I did note the fact that it has a long and honorable tradition in America, I did not say I necessarily approved of it, much less offer it as an "excuse".

(And it's hardly a "right", since one can still go to jail for engaging in it. But I guess the "subtle" points of Law are lost on you.)

I realize that as a dyed-in-the-wool "socialist" you don't give a damn about facts, don't worry about context, and think nothing of misquoting people so you can "spin" what they say to your own purpose (along with the English language), but this latest example of your work for the "Ministry of Truth" is truly pathetic.

Which brings us to another "straw man" you've created. I don't recall saying that you (or Roy, or Mr. Martinez) deny (or don't "know") that reform is needed. I merely observed that their version of it (apparently consisting of enforcement only) is naive and unworkable. And I don't recall saying anything about what you "know". (Which I'm increasingly suspecting is nothing!) In my Comments I've provided plenty of objections or responses to Mr. Azzarello and Mr. Martinez on the substance of immigration reform (and nothing about "excusing" Grijalva). Why do you keep evading and avoiding what I wrote? Address yourself to that instead of to things I didn't say!

Ditto for the bit about "Mexican Nationals". You were the one who specified those as the illegal immigrants Grijalva (supposedly) chose to represent "instead of the American people who elected him into office". (Grijalva never specified either their nationality, or where they came from.) As the saying goes: your words, sir, not mine! And in case you've forgotten that already, here (again) is the link to that earlier Comment where you said this:

(Of course, you could just scroll up the page and re-read it, but we wouldn't want to make you work for it.)

I have no idea where "the vast percentage of them" originally came from, or what nationality they are. Illegal immigrants come from all over, and (according to the INS) at least half flew over our Northern, Eastern, and Western borders. They didn't all come from "south of the Border". Even the ones who did probably came from other countries besides Mexico. (There's a whole continent "down there" you know.) So, to return to a point I made previously, if you want to discuss this complex subject, in a serious and intelligent fashion, you should first abandon "soundbites", rhetoric, and ideology. But, as usual, you're incapable of it!

Nowhere did Grijalva say reform should be "half-fast or rushed", nor did he state this was "the number one domestic issue". Once again those are your words. The article merely said this one of the things at the top of his priorities. And quotes him saying:

we can't let [immigration] get put so far on the back burner that we can't have a discussion on it

As I noted (in a Comment which was posted before you wrote the one I'm now replying to) while the Democratically controlled Senate has been working on this issue for some time, the Republican House has no interest in addressing it.

Since you falsely seek to blame Grijalva for this, but give a "pass" to Bohner, I can only conclude you have no problem ignoring this issue entirely! (I'll deal with your "reply" to that Comment in the appropriate place, below.)

Comparing Cruz's actions in the Senate to Grijalva in the House is either a further demonstration of your total ignorance, or deliberate deception on your part. (Either way, it's a worthless "opinion".) In the House "mob rule" (sorry, majority rule) prevails. Or, to be more exact, thanks to the so-called "Hastert Rule", the "majority of the majority" (in reality a minority) rules. So Grijalva could have stood on the floor of the House and screamed about immigration reform forever, but accomplished nothing. (Except, perhaps, to be penalized for violating House rules. They don't allow filibusters there, remember?) Cruz, on the other hand, didn't "accomplish" anything either, except for a publicity stunt that helped cause the U.S. billions! I wonder how you'd react if Grijalva could and did the same thing: shut-down the government until the DREAM Act was passed? Would you applaud his courage and determination, or condemn his attempt at extortion? Since there's no way he could do it, we'll never know.

And if you can't tell the difference between Civil Disobediance (openly breaking the law, and facing the consequences, as a form of political protest), and secretly using cocaine for - well, whatever non-political reason people take the stuff, then I can only conclude you are a blithering idiot! No wonder you avoid facts and reason - you probably don't even know what they are.

You are evading what I wrote, because you failed to address almost everything I've said. (I only say "almost" because I don't have the time to do a line-by-line analysis to see if there was anything you did address). Why don't you just go through the paragraphs I helpfully numbered in my original Comment, and respond to each point made there. You can always (after doing that) raise such additional points as you deem valid and relevant. That, sir, is the way to have an honest and intelligent debate on the topic of Immigration Reform!

In your online reply to Mr. Oviatt's letter of November 12, entitled Grijalva is wrong, you wrote:

It's fun watching "conservatives" who...get all self-righteous in denouncing the honorable practice of civil disobedience. That's all Congressman Grijalva was doing, after all.

So, no I did not put words into your mouth. I did not misquote you. Your words above, abbreviated of course, to get rid of all of your verbose filler, were directly copied and pasted from the same paragraph.

I don't make things up out of thin air about what you say as you have been doing to me.

Of course you did, and the easiest way to prove it is to put back in the part you "abbreviated" so you could take your "cheap shot", and engage in the sophistry of creating a "straw man" to attack. Here's the entire paragraph (with the words you omitted underlined):

It's fun watching "conservatives" who often prattle about a right to "nullify" laws they disagree with, or invoke their "Second Amendment rights" against them (to do what, I've always wondered - shoot Congress?), or talk outright about secession, get all self-righteous in denouncing the honorable practice of civil disobedience. That's all Congressman Grijalva was doing, after all. Yes, he broke the law, and suffered the consequences: arrest for his "heinous" act.

Gee, why did you "abbreviate" all that? Could it be you had to twist what I wrote in order to lie about it? An honest person wouldn't behave that way, but I'm afraid you've proven plenty of times that adjective doesn't apply to you!

The whole point was that I contrasted how "conservatives" have no trouble declaring their "right" to break any laws they wish ("Nullification"), to threaten violence to achieve their political ends ("Second Amendment rights"), or to tear the nation to pieces in order to achieve their goals ("Secession), with how they get all self-righteous about civil disobedience which (though I'm not personally crazy about it) does have a long and honorable tradition in this country.

Plus, although I didn't add further "verbose filler", the point of that last sentence (which you "abbreviated" out of existence) was to contrast "conservatives" speaking as if they can break laws with impunity, to Grijalva's willingness to pay the penalty for doing so.

No, sir, you didn't merely 'copy and paste' my paragraph, you copied, deceitfully edited, and then pasted your edited version - in the process changing what I wrote from "my words" to yours!

But what can I expect from someone who probably preferred to have a President "who likes firing people"?

P.S. - And would it have hurt you to tell me where you pulled that misquote from the first time you used it? What were you trying to hide? Oh, yeah, the fact that you did misquote me!

P.P.S. - Of course, you also evaded and avoided the rest of what I said (as you almost always do), because having an intelligent and honest debate is the last thing you're interested in!

A world class city always includes public art. But is not public art considered a socialistic ideal? I am not sure but was the art in the east valley part of a deal with the Native Americans since some of the freeways are on reservation land? I could be wrong.

I had to laugh at the placement of Mr. Terwillingers letter talking about the symbol of the serpent because on my computer screen, it was placed immediately to the left of the advertisement for Estrella High School which depicts...you got it, a serpent! ROFL.

Hope you're sitting down for this one, but I agree (mostly). I'm not sure the "east side" is prettier than the west. (Our mountains can beat up their mountains.) But there's no doubt they've done a better job decorating their highways than we have. (Of course, just not having that hideous Mosquito/Hummingbird wall is a big plus for them!)

Your suggestion that we employ Native American Art to decorate our roads is brilliant, and I join in the call.

P.S. - Full disclosure: I became a member of the Heard Museum when I first moved here more than a decade ago, and I fell in love with Native American Art the first time I came to Arizona - way back in 1990. In fact, it's one of the reasons I moved here.

Gordon, You asked if I am sitting down. Well, no actually I am lying down. I think I just had a heart attack after reading your comment. So actually we do have something in common, however it is not politics. I fell in love with the Sonoran desert as a young boy but never knew it. When I visited the valley in 1995 I was overwhelmed by the desert and decided not to go back to the midwest. So here I am . Who would have believed that you and I would have anything in common ? More amazing yet is that you would call one of my ideas brilliant. Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket today.

Actually, that we should agree on matters of taste isn't so astonishing. There's no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" Art, and this is one area where opinions really don't need facts! (After all, the only fact that counts is whether or not someone likes something.)

By the way, I know what you mean about falling in love with the Sonoran Desert. That I moved here is even funnier when you realize Arizona is everything I don't like: hot, flat, dry. But it's also very beautiful in its own way. There are times when the light here is like nowhere else. (Particularly in the desert.)